Talk:Elections in Australia

I dropped it back a notch. High is enough, I would have thought. Fred 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)→Reply

Hi, Alec,

My reference for the 1961 result in the electorate of Moreton is the Bartlett Diaries, edited by Senator Andrew Bartlett, which can be found at http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1286.

I know from personal experience that Bartlett is correct, as I remember it when it happened. The figure s can also be obtained from the Electoral Office, but not as easily as from Bartlett.

The House of Representatives lasts no more than three years after it first meets, but may be dissolved earlier. After the House is dissolved, the next House must meet within 140 days. The maximum period between elections is therefore 3 years, 140 days, and the minimum approximately a month.

Is there a cite for the highlighted words? Because I dispute them.

It's true that the next House must meet no more than 140 days after the old House was dissolved, and it's true that a House cannot exceed three years. But that does not mean that the maximum period between elections is therefore 3 years 140 days. By my calculations, it's 3 years 175 days.

• An election must occur no less than 33 days after dissolution, and no more than 68 days after.
• The period between the election day and the meeting of the next House can therefore be as great as (140 - 33 =) 107 days.
• Say one election was held as early as possible, 33 days after dissolution, and the next election was held as late as possible, 68 days after dissolution; and say the house ran for its maximum 3 year period. That means the period between the two elections can be as great as (107 days + 3 years + 68 days =) 3 years 175 days.

Now, for the mimimum period between elections. Say the new House was dissolved on the very day it first met. The new election could be held no less than 33 days after that. The period since the previous election is not possible to say precisely, but we'd have to allow a minimum of about three weeks for the detailed results to become clear in closely contested seats, and then allow for recounts (say another week). The writs could be returned ASAP (say 3 days realistically), and the new parliament could be summoned to meet within about another 3 days, I guess (the maximum period between return of the writs and the meeting of the parliament is 30 days, but it can happen sooner than that). That makes it about 67 days between elections, absolute minimum, not "approximately a month". It's fuzzy because the only constraint is the maximum 100 day period between the issue of the writs and the return of the writs. Within that 100 days (or less), the nominations close between 10 and 27 days after issue of writs, and the election day is between 23 and 31 days after close of nominations, but the 2 cycles are not otherwise connected. Source for all this detail is House of Representatives Practice (see Table: The Election Process). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Reply

In Australia, it is the 'House of Representitives', not 'house'. Apart from being informal, it is an American abbreviation which should not be applied to countries outside of America who don't use that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.123.184 (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

That would be 'House of Representatives'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Reply

Someone's got it into their head that the territory senators have three-year terms, and has inserted this "information" in various places. They DO NOT have three-year terms. Unlike the state senators, their term is not fixed to any precise period AT ALL. Their terms commence on election day for the House of Representatives and come to an end on the next election day for that House. That's it - see Commonwealth Electoral Act, ss 40-44. Those Reps elections can be as close as two and a half months or as far apart as 3 years 175 days (see above). See Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice for more detail. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Reply

Should the Australian Electoral Commission Election Summary 1901-2010 section be removed. It is now outdated, its not clear or written in prose. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Definitely in favour of it's removal. It's meaning is not clear! The impression it gives is that the ALP wins most elections. 118.208.91.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Why is this coloured against Labour when it was coalition that won? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.44.177 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Reply

It highlights the party that got the highest percentage of votes. In 1998, that was Labor, even though they got fewer seats than the Coalition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elections in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502161248/http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/news-in-australia/donations-a-dilemma-of-modern-democracy.htm to http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/news-in-australia/donations-a-dilemma-of-modern-democracy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck }}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check }} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Reply

Should this article mention that the system used is the instant-runoff voting system? Mateussf (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Reply

Having just learnt what it is by clicking on the link, I guess we could mention it, but having never heard the term used to describe Australian elections in over 50 years of watching, I'm wondering what it will achieve. The article doesn't tell me, but is the term truly commonly used anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Reply

The section on "Election timing" does not mention the scope. The lede sets that scene that overall article covers both levels: it talks about the processes "to elect the legislature of the Commonwealth of Australia, as well as for each Australian state and territory" etc. But this section on Timing reads as though it refers to federal elections only, and its references are only federal, though I can imagine that it could perhaps refer to state as well. Can we specify which it is, or that it covers both? If it is purely federal, can we add the state timing information as well?--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to see that chart with the Liberal Party's (and its precedent's) votes separated from the National Party's (and its precedent's) to give a clearer picture of support for the Liberal Party itself, and occasions where if the National Party (or its precedent) could have crossed the floor and formed Govt with the ALP, as a genuinely independent party might have, as opposed to a gerrymander driven artifice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.201.221 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Reply

Do candidates for seats have to reside in that they have to reside in the seats (states for Senate) where they are standing for? What about other countries? ----MountVic127 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

I don't think House of Representatives candidates have to reside in the specific constituency they are seeking election for. But I've heard of candidates not residing in their constituencies at the time of their election such as Simon Kennedy at the 2024 Cook by-election — I remember news reports stated at the time that he was not able to vote for himself.

When standing for election for either chamber you have to be in the state you are looking to represent, for more information you can check section 34 of the Constitution.^[1]

Qwerty123M (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

However, state and territory elections cannot, by federal law, take place within a week before or after a federal election

Can anyone find a source for this? I noticed that 2025 Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic election there is a reference linking to a TEC statement made in March, announcing that the date of the Tas LC elections was being moved to "avoid a clash with possible federal election dates" and doesn't refer to specific legislation. (As it happens the LC elections are usually first Saturday in May, which ended up being the precise date of the federal election). -- Chuq (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 supports this claim.^[1] Thanks for pointing that missing reference out to me!

Qwerty123M (talk) Originally posted at 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Reply
Updated Qwerty123M (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for finding it User:Qwerty123M! -- Chuq (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Reply